Software :: RAID Mdadm Cant Add Disks To Array?
Sep 10, 2010
I have a 7-drive RAID array on my computer. Recently, my SATA PCI card died, and after going through multiple cards to find another one that worked with linux, I now can't assemble the array. The drives are no longer in the order they were in previously, and mdadm can't seem to reassemble the array. It says there are 2 drives and one spare, even though there were 7 drives and no spares. I know for a fact that none of the drives are corrupted, because one of the non-working RAID cards was still able to mount the array for a short period, but would loose the drives during resyncing (I later found out that the chipset on the card was had extremely limited linux support). I have tried running "mdadm --assemble --scan" and after the drive is partially assembled, I add the other drives with "mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sdc1". These both return errors and will not complete on the new raid card.
Code:
aaron-desktop:~ aaron$ sudo mdadm --assemble /dev/md0
mdadm: /dev/md0 assembled from 2 drives and 1 spare - not enough to start the array.
[code]....
View 4 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Nov 22, 2009
Here's a brief description of my system:
120GB Sata HDD - Primary OS drive
3 x 1.0TB Sata HDD - Raid 5 array
This is on a C2D MSI P35 Platinum board. Anyway, did a fresh install of F12 on the 120GB, which I had problems with - Anaconda refused to see the drive. Fedora Live could see it fine, and it was listed as an 'nvidia_raid_member' - no idea why, but I completely erased the disc under the Live CD and proceeded to install F12.
Once F12 was installed, I loaded up mdadm to re-activate my Raid 5 array, using 'sudo mdadm --assemble --uuidthe uuid) - and it started with only 2 of the 3 drives. My /dev/sdb drive did not activate into the array, due to what mdadm said was a mismatched UUID. Ok, so I erased /dev/sdb, intending to rebuild the array. Erased /dev/sdb, and then attempted 'sudo mdadm --add /dev/md0 /dev/sdb' and I get this error: "mdadm: Cannot add disks to a 'member' array, perform this operation on the parent container" - I can find NO information on this error message.
[Code].....
I don't believe the hard drives are connected in the exact same order they were in before - I disconnected everything in the system and blew it out (it was pretty dusty)
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jan 21, 2011
when I start my raid5, only 2 disks of 3 are active on md0. The 3rd disk is inactive on md_d0.When I do mdadm --examine, the two active disks report 2 active, 2 working, 1 failed. the inactive disk resports 3 active, 3 working, 0 failed.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jun 7, 2010
I just had a whole 2TB Software RAID 5 blow up on me. I rebooted my server, which i hardly ever do and low and behold i loose one of my raid 5 sets. It seems like two of the disks are not showing up properly.. What i mean by that is the OS picks up the disks, but it doesnt see the partitions.
I ran smartct -l on all the drives in question and they're all in good working order.
Is there some sort of repair tool i can use to scan the busted drives (since they're available) to fix any possible errors that might be present.
Here is what the "good" drive looks like when i use sfdisk:
Quote:
sudo sfdisk -l /dev/sda
Disk /dev/sda: 121601 cylinders, 255 heads, 63 sectors/track
Units = cylinders of 8225280 bytes, blocks of 1024 bytes, counting from 0
Device Boot Start End #cyls #blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 0+ 121600 121601- 976760001 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 0 - 0 0 0 Empty
[Code]....
View 2 Replies
View Related
Aug 14, 2010
I'm running a Debian homeserver, with a 3-disk (1GB each) raid 5 array using mdadm (the OS is on a separate disk).Now, smartmontools noticed some bad sectors on one of the disks, and I'm not sure what to do next (except for backup of valuable data).I found some articles on how to fix these sectors, but I'm unaware what the result on the whole array will be.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Mar 2, 2011
a server that was running a hardware isw raid on the system (root) disk. This was working just fine until I started getting sector errors on one of the disks. So, I shutdown the system and removed the failing drive and installed a new drive (same size). On reboot I went in to the intel raid setup and it did show the new drive and I was able to set it to rebuild the raid. So, continuing the reboot everything came up just fine except the raid 1 on the system disk. I have tried many times to get the system to rebuild the raid using dmraid, but to no avail it would not start a rebuild. In order to get the system back up and make sure that the disk was duplicated I was able to 'dd' the working disk to the new disk that was installed.At present when I look at the system it does not show up with a raid setup on the system disk ( this comprises the entire 1TB disk with w partitions sda1 as / and sda2 as swap).Problem:I have decided to forego the intel raid and just use mdadm. I have a test system setup to duplicate (not the software, but the disk partitions) the server setup.
Code:
[root@kilchis etc]# fdisk -l
Disk /dev/sda: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
View 12 Replies
View Related
Feb 5, 2011
I am trying to create a new mdadm RAID 5 device /dev/md0 across three disks where such an array previously existed, but whenever I do it never recovers properly and tells me that I have a faulty spare in my array. More-specific details below. I recently installed Ubuntu Server 10.10 on a new box with the intent of using it as a NAS sorta-thing. I have 3 HDDs (2 TB each) and was hoping to use most of the available disk space as a RAID5 mdadm device (which gives me a bit less than 4TB.)
I configured /dev/md0 during OS installation across three partitions on the three disks - /dev/sda5, /dev/sdb5 and /dev/sdc5, which are all identical sizes. The OS, swap partition etc. are all on /dev/sda. Everything worked fine, and I was able to format the device as ext4 and mount it. Good so far.
Then I thought I should simulate a failure before I started keeping important stuff on the RAID array - no point having RAID 5 if it doesn't provide some redundancy that I actually know how to use, right? So I unplugged one of my drives, booted up, and was able to mount the device in a degraded state; test data I had put on there was still fine. Great. My trouble began when I plugged the third drive back in and re-booted. I re-added the removed drive to /dev/md0 and recovery began; things would look something like this:
Code:
user@guybrush:~$ cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [linear] [multipath] [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raid10]
md0 : active raid5 sdc5[3] sdb5[1] sda5[0]
3779096448 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/2] [UU_]
[Code]...
View 9 Replies
View Related
Dec 21, 2010
I have been having some odd issues over the last day or so while trying to get a raid 5 array running in software under Kubuntu. I installed 3 1TB drives and started up, my sd* order got all messed up( sda was now sdc and so on). This wasn't entirely unexpected, so I fixed up fstab and booted again. I found all three of the drives I installed, set them to raid auto-detect and used mdadm to create /dev/md0. I then created mdadm.conf by piping the output of mdadm --detail --scan --verbose into /etc/mdadm.conf.At this point, everything was still going swimmingly. I copied over a few hundred GB of data from another failing drive and everything seemed ok. I went to reboot once the copy was done and everything just went weird. All of the sd* drives went back to the original. Of course, this meant that the mdadm.conf was wrong. I tried to just change the device list, but that didn't work. I then deleted mdadm.conf and rebooted. The drive list stayed in the original order this time, so I just tried manually starting the array.
By erasing the partition table of the 3rd drive, I've been able to get it to the status of spare, but it says it is busy when I try to add it to the array. A grep through dmesg makes me think that md has a lock on it. I'm not sure where to go with it now. If anyone has any pointers, I would like to hear them.
Device List(original):
/dev/sda => boot drive, /home /
/dev/sdb => 1.5TB media storage, failing
[code]...
View 1 Replies
View Related
Nov 16, 2009
mdadm --create /dev/md1 --level=1 --raid-disks=2 missing /dev/sdb1and I getmd1: raid array is not clean -- starting background reconstructionWhy is it not clean?Should I be worried?The HD is not new it has been used in before in a raid array but has beenrepartitionated.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jun 7, 2011
I have 4 WD10EARS drives running in a RAID 5 array using MDADM.Yesterday my OS Drive failed. I have replaced this and installed a fresh copy of Ubuntu 11.04 on it. then installed MDADM, and rebooted the machine, hoping that it would automatically rebuild the array.It hasnt, when i look at the array using Disk Utility, it says that the array is not running. If i try to start the array it says :Error assembling array: mdadm exited with exit code 1: mdadm: failed to RUN_ARRAY /dev/md0: Input/output error
mdadm: Not enough devices to start the array.I have tried MDADM --assemble --scan and it gives this output:mdadm: /dev/md0 assembled from 2 drives - not enough to start the array.I know that there are 4 drives present as they are all showing, but it is only using 2 of them.I also ran MDADM -- detail /dev.md0 which gave:
root@warren-P5K-E:~# mdadm --detail /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
Version : 0.90
[code]...
View 11 Replies
View Related
Feb 3, 2011
When we assemble a raid array, from where does it load configuration information for that array? I thought it refers to /etc/mdadm.conf file, but in my system, mdadm.conf file doesn't even contain all information. Still it is able to successfully assemble previously created device.
# cat /etc/mdadm.conf
DEVICE /dev/sd[bcdjkl]1
DEVICE /dev/loop[012345]
[code]...
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jul 15, 2010
I've been having troubles with software raid. In particular, the raid array becomes un "assembleable" after reboots. The config is CentOS 5, 4 sata discs (one by 160 containing OS, no raid and 3 2TB disks configured as a RAID 5 array - no spare drive). These drives were configured in anaconda and all seemed to go well (the drive and its lvm partitions worked and it finished rebuilding overnight). A couple of reboots later the drives cannot be assembled anymore and the machine won't boot. The error message says:
mdadm: /dev/md0 assembled from 1 drive and 1 spare - not enough to start the array.
Of course there are 3 drives and no spares in the array as configured. Manually starting the array with mdadm --assemble --scan gives the same message as does assembling the drive by specifying the individual parts. /proc/mdstat does recognize the 3 drives and when I look at the partition tables in fdisk, they show as being software raid. What could be wrong or steps to diagnose? I tried configuring the raid drives manually before going the anaconda route. Also, does anyone know I can edit the /etc/fstab file to disable them so the machine will at least boot. The (Repair filesystem) shell has the / drive mounted r/o.
View 7 Replies
View Related
Mar 3, 2010
I have a 4 drive RAID 5 array set up using mdadm. The system is stored on a seperate physical disk outside of the array. When reading from the array its fast but when writing to the array its extremely slow, down to 20MB/Sec compared to 125MB/Sec reading. It does a bit then pauses, then writes a bit more and then pauses again and so on.The test i did was to copy a 5GB file from the RAID to another spare non-raid disk on the system average speed 126MB/s. Copying it back on to the RAID (in another folder) the speed was 20MB/s.The other thing is very slow several KB/s write speed copying from eSATA drive to the RAID.
View 9 Replies
View Related
Mar 12, 2010
I've recently started having an issue with an mdadm RAID 6 array that been operational for about 2500 hours.
Intermittently during write operations the array stalls, dropping to almost 0 write speed for 10-30 seconds. When this occur one or both of the 2 drives attached to a 2 port Silicon Image si3132 SATA-II controller "locks up" with its activity light locked on. This just started occurring within the last week and didn't seem to coincide with any update that i noticed. The array has just recently passed 12.5% full. The size of the write does not seem to make any difference and it seems completely random. Some times copying a 5 GB dataset results in no slow down other times a torrent downloading to the array at 50kb/sec does cause a slow down and vise versa.
The array consists of 8 WD 1.5TB drives, 6 attached to the ICH9R south bridge, and 2 attached to a si3132 based PCI express card. The array is formatted as a single ext4 partition.
Checking SMART data for all drives shows no errors. Testing read speed with hdparm reports what i would expect (100mb/sec for each drive, ~425mb/sec for the array).
The only thing i did notice is that udma6 is enabled for all the ICH9R drives while only udma5 is enabled for the si3132 drives. Write cache is enabled for all the disks. Attempting to set the si3132 drive to udma6 results in an IO error from hdparm.
The si3132 drive is using the sata_sil24 driver. Nothing of interest appears in the kern or syslog. During this time top shows very high wait time.
The s13132 controller appears to have the original firmware from 2006 loaded, there are some firmware updates available on the Silicon Image website for this controller that now appear to offer separate firmwares for RAID operation (some sort of hybrid controller/software thing the controller supports) and a separate firmware for standard IDE use.
Has anyone had similar issues with this controller? Is a firmware update a reasonable course of action? If so which firmware is best supported by the linux driver?
I know i'm not using its raid features but i've dealt with controllers that needed to be in raid mode for ahci to be active and for linux to work well with them. I'm bit ify at the idea of just trying it and finding out as it could knock 2 disks of my array out of action.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Oct 27, 2010
We have some servers that run in very harsh environments (research vessel) that need to have high-availability.We have software RAID 1 for some measure of resiliency, along with proper data backups (tapes etc), however we would like to be able to break out a new server and re-image it (including RAID setup) from a known good copy if the hardware completely fails on the production box. Simplicity of the process is a big plus.I am interested in any advice on the best way to approach this. My current approach (relatively new to Linux administration, totally new to MDADM) is to use DD to take a complete gzipped copy of one of the RAID'ed devices (from a live CD): ode:
dd if=/dev/sda bs=4096 | gzip -c > /mnt/external/image/test.img then reverse the process on the new PC, finally using Code:mdadm --assemble to re-create and re-build the array.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Nov 30, 2010
I am learning software raid 1 with centos 5.5. I created the raid with out any problems and removed the first drive to check there was no problems and it booted. I have installed the old drive back in the system as hdc and need to resync the drives (used old drive as partitions correct) I thought I could use raidhotadd but id does not seem to exist anymore. how I resync the drives in the array hda primary and hdc secondary using mdadm
View 1 Replies
View Related
Feb 20, 2011
This is message I get when I try and start itmdadm: /dev/md0 assembled from 2 drives - not enough to start the arrayBelow is the information I've collected about any help on how I can get the raid back up and going to I can get the data off of it would be awesome
sudo mdadm --examine --scan -v
ARRAY /dev/md0 level=raid10 num-devices=4 UUID=91c36708:a7cbb532:5b51dc92:ba008491
devices=/dev/sdd1,/dev/sdc1,/dev/sdb1,/dev/sda1
[code]...
View 1 Replies
View Related
Aug 31, 2010
I have been having this problem for the past couple days and have done my best to solve it, but to no avail. I am using mdadm, which I'm not the most experienced in, to make a raid5 array using three separate disks (dev/sda, dev/sdc, dev/sdd). For some reason not all three drives are being assembled at boot, but I can add the missing array without any problems later, its just that this takes hours to sync. Here is some information:
[Code]....
View 11 Replies
View Related
Mar 4, 2010
I'm trying to do some RAID managing with mdadm. I would like to sync my spare disk and then remove it from the array for making a backup out of it with dd command (the best way i can think of to get the current image of the whole system as it can't be done using the active RAID as source, because is constantly in use and changing). So, I have RAID1 array with 1 spare and 2 active disks (configuration listed below). Now I would like to force spare to sync and then remove it from array, although not faulty.
However, mdadm man page states:
"Devices can only be removed from an array if they are not in active use. i.e. that must be spares or failed devices. To remove an active device, it must be marked as faulty first."
So, I'd have to mark a disk as faulty (which it is not) to be able to remove it from array. There seems to be several people reporting that they can't remove this faulty flag accidentally given to a drive. And mdadm does not give direct for such operation. Isn't there a way I could remove and add disks whenever feeling like it?? One way would be open the cover and physically remove the disk. I'm not taking the risk, though. System is almost always in use, so there is not much chance for me to power off for temporary disk removal.
RAID CONFIGURATION:
~# mdadm --detail /dev/md0
/dev/md0:
Version : 00.90.03
Creation Time : Fri Aug 4 17:38:26 2006
Raid Level : raid1
Array Size : 238950720 (227.88 GiB 244.69 GB)
View 3 Replies
View Related
Apr 11, 2010
I wanted to merge my 1TB disks into and RAID 5 array, 4 of them in RAID 5 is above 2Terabytes limit of msdos partition tables which grub2 can boot from, so I decided to start up the system from scratch, by building it on GPT partitions, but seems grub2 won't boot from GPT partition because it drops to grub rescue and I can't really do anything from there.
here's my set up:
/dev/md0 (raid 1) - 100MB total:
- dev/sda1, /dev/sdb1, /dev/sdc1, /dev/sdd1
/dev/md1 (raid 5) - 45GB total:
- dev/sda2, /dev/sdb2, /dev/sdc2, /dev/sdd2
/dev/md2 (raid 5) - something bit lower than 3TB:
- dev/sda3, /dev/sdb3, /dev/sdc3, /dev/sdd3
any tips how to have this system up and running? Because I've spent like 3 days jumping over various problems
View 8 Replies
View Related
Jan 13, 2010
I'm looking to stock my SuperMicro P8SCi with two 1-2 TB SATA hard discs, for running backups and web hosting. There are reviews of certain disks stating that the low-power disks will get kicked out of the Raid due to their slow response time, and it also appears that there have been quality problems with these newer disks, as if the race to size has lowered their reliability.
Can someone recommend a good brand and specific disks that you've had experience with? I'd rather not need to replace these after putting them in, but I also don't want to pay significantly more for an illusion of quality.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Apr 15, 2011
I have a home server running Openfiler 2.3 x64 with 4x1.5TB software RAID 5 array (more details on the hardware and OS later). All was working well for two years until several weeks ago, the array failed with two faulty disks at the same time. Well, those thing could happen, especially if one is using desktop-grade disks instead of enterprise-grade ones (way too expensive for a home server). Since is was most likely a false positive, I've reassembled the array:
Code:
# mdadm --assemble --force /dev/md0 /dev/sdb1 /dev/sdc1 /dev/sdd1 /dev/sde1
mdadm: forcing event count in /dev/sdb1(0) from 110 upto 122
mdadm: forcing event count in /dev/sdc1(1) from 110 upto 122
[code]....
Right. Once is just a coincident but twice in such a sort period of time means that something is wrong. I've reassembled the array and again, all the files were intact. But now was the time to think seriously about backing up my array, so I've ordered a 2TB external disk and in the meantime kept the server off. When I got the external drive, I hooked it up to my Windows desktop, turned on the server and started copying the files. After about 10 minutes two drives failed again. I've reassembled, rebooted and started copying again, but after a few MBs, the copy process reported a problem - the files were unavailable. A few retried and the process resumed, but a few MBs later it had to stop again, for the same reason. Several more stops like those and two disks failed again. Looking at the /var/log/messages file, I found a lot of error like these:
Quote:
Apr 12 22:44:02 NAS kernel: [77047.467686] ata1.00: configured for UDMA/33
Apr 12 22:44:02 NAS kernel: [77047.523714] ata1.01: configured for UDMA/133
Apr 12 22:44:02 NAS kernel: [77047.523727] ata1: EH complete
[code]....
The motherboard is Gigabyte GA-G31M-ES2L based on Intel's G31 chipset, the 4 disks are Seagate 7200.11 (with a version of a firmware that doesn't cause frequent data corruption).
View 4 Replies
View Related
Mar 25, 2011
I have been running a server with an increasingly large md array and always been plagued with intermittent disk faults. For a long time, I've attributed those to either temperature or power glitches. I had just embarked on a quest to a) lower case and drive temperature. They were running between 43 and 47C, sometimes peaking at 52C, so I've added more case fan power and made sure the drive cage was in the flow (it has it's own fan, too). Also, I've upgraded my power supply and made very sure that all the connectors are good. The array currently is a RAID6 with 5 Seagate 1,5TB drives.
When everything seemed to be working fine, I looked at my SMART logs and found that two of my drives (both well over 14000 operating hours) were showing uncorrectible bad blocks. Since it's RAID6, I figured, I couldn't do much harm, ran a badblocks test on it, zeroed the blocks that were reported bad, figuring the drive defect management would remap them to a good part of the disk and zeroed the superblock. I then added it back to the pack and the resync started. At around 50%, a second drive decided to go and shortly thereafter a third. Now, with two out of five drives, RAID6 will fail. Fine. At least, no data will be written to it anymore, however, now I cannot reassemble the array anymore.
Whenever I try I get this:
Code:
mdadm --assemble --scan
mdadm: /dev/md1 assembled from 2 drives and 2 spares - not enough to start the array
Code:
cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid0] [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [linear]
md1 : inactive sdf1[4](S) sde1[6](S) sdg1[1](S) sdh1[5](S) sdd1[2](S)
7325679320 blocks super 1.0
md0 : active raid1 sdb2[0] sdc2[1]
312464128 blocks [2/2] [UU]
bitmap: 3/149 pages [12KB], 1024KB chunk
Which is not fine. I'm sure that three devices are fine (normally, a failed device would just rejoin the array, skipping most of the resync by way of the bitmap) so I should be able to reassemble the array with the two good ones and the one that failed last, then add the one that failed during the resync and finally re-add the original offender. However, I have no idea how to get them out of the "(S)" state.
Code:
mdadm --examine /dev/sdd1
/dev/sdd1:
Magic : a92b4efc
Version : 1.0
Feature Map : 0x1
Array UUID : d79d81cc:fff69625:5fb4ab4c:46d45217 .....
View 2 Replies
View Related
May 31, 2011
I've been having some problems w/ a my RAID 5 array, and after extensive investigation, I'm fairly sure that my last resort is rebuilding the array. I'd tried --assemble, b/c it's a previously created array, but it didn't seem to like that. So, I checked into --create, and it will re-create the array w/out destroying the data, if the superblocks are persistent, which they seem to be. However, here's what I get:
[Code]....
My question is: why do /dev/sdb1 and /dev/sdi1 show as both ext2fs and also as part of a RAID array?
View 3 Replies
View Related
Dec 2, 2010
Alright, I have this issue on both SystemRescueCD and Debian Squeeze. I have an ASUS P5Q Turbo board that supports hardware RAID. If I configure an array and then start the Linux installer or boot the rescue CD, I get /dev/sda and /dev/sdb instead of an array. What gives? I need to start installing within the hour so I am desperate for an answer!
View 1 Replies
View Related
Feb 26, 2011
Using a fresh copy of server 10.04 im trying to simulate a failed raid array on a pair of 2tb disks. Here is the procedure i have been following so far:
- Remove the dead disk partitions from each of the raid 1 arrays (substitute the correct md devices and partitions)
- mdadm /dev/md0 -r /dev/sdb2
- mdadm /dev/md1 -r /dev/sdb3
[code]....
I get an error here that sfdisk does not support gpt (guid partition table). I thought sfdisk did support gpt? It says to use parted, but i cant find a command that copies a partition table over from another disk in parted documentation. Any suggestions? I suppose i could make the partitions manually, but im writing a procedure for people who arent that technical and i need it to be simple enough to be run in my absence. manually building the partitions would be too hard for them.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Mar 18, 2010
I wonder how to attach new sata hard disk to software array where are two disk and one is crashed (this is a mirroring mode=Raid 1).Situation like this:I unpluged crashed disk and I buy the similar one and plug in What Next should I do?
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jan 11, 2010
I am planning on setting up a 4x1TB RAID5 with mdadm under Ubuntu 9.10. I tried installing mdadm using "sudo apt-get install mdadm", all worked fine except for the following error: Code: Generating array device nodes... /var/lib/dpkg/info/mdadm.postinst: 170: /dev/MAKEDEV: not found failed. The end result is the /dev/md0 device has not been created, as can be seen here:
Code: windsok@beer:~$ mdadm --detail /dev/md0 mdadm: cannot open /dev/md0: No such file or directory After googling, I found the following bug which describes the issue: [URL] However it was reported way back in April 2009, and it does not look like it will be fixed any time soon, so I was wondering if anyone knows a workaround for this bug, to get me up and running?
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jul 18, 2011
I have a raid5 on 10 disk, 750gb and it have worked fine with grub for a long time with ubuntu 10.04 lts. A couple of days ago I added a disk to the raid, growd it and then resized it.. BUT, I started the resize-process on a terminal on another computer, and after some time my girlfriend powered down that computer!
So the resize process cancelled in the middle and i couldn't acess any of the HDDs so I rebooted the server.
Now the problem, the system is not booting up, simple black with a blinking line. Used a rescue CD to boot it up, finised the resize-process and the raid seems to be working fine so I tried to boot normal again. Same problem. Rescue cd, updated grub, got several errors: error: unsupported RAID version: 0.91. I have tried to purge grub, grub-pc, grub commmon, removed /boot/grub and installed grub again. Same problem.
I have tried to erased mbr (# dd if=/dev/null of=/dev/sdX bs=446 count=1) on sda (ide disk, system), sdb (sata, new raid disk). Same problem. Removed and reinstalled ubuntu 11.04 and is now getting error: no such device: (hdd id). Again tried to reinstall grub on both sda and sdb, no luck. update-grub is still generating error about raid id 0.91 and is back on a blinking line on normal boot. When you'r resizeing a raid MDADM changed the ID from 0.90 to 0.91 to prevent something that happend happened. But since I have completed the resize-process MDADM have indeed changed the ID back to 0.90 on all disks.
I have also tried to follow a howto on a similar problem with a patch on [URL] But I cant compile, various error about dpkg. So my problem is, I cant get grub to work. It just gives me a blinking line and unsupported RAID version: 0.91.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Sep 27, 2010
I have a NETGEAR ReadyNAS NV+ with four 1TB drives in a RAID-5 array. This is our primary file storage. This has previously been backed up to a hardware RAID-0 array directly attached to our Windows server. The capacity of this backup array is no longer sufficient. So the plan was, take a bunch of 200GB to 320GB drives (And a 750) I had kicking around, chuck them in a couple of old SCSI drive enclosures I have collecting dust, attach them via IDA/SATA-to-USB adaptors to a USB hub, attach that to the server, create a JBOD array spanning the disks, and back up the NAS to that. Performance is not an issue as this is just to be used for backup, with the idea being as near to zero cost as possible (Spend so far = NZ$100�ish).
The first hurdle I struck was Windows not supporting Dynamic Disks on USB drives (Required to create a spanned volume). At first I resisted using another machine (i.e. a machine running Ubuntu) as I didn't want to dedicate a piece of hardware to backing up the NAS. I then decided it would be acceptable to do this via a VM, which is what I've done.So I have 10.04 running under VMWare Server 2.0.2 under Windows Server 2008 R2. The disks are all presented to the VM. I wasn't sure if I was going to end up creating the array under LVM or something else, but I noticed Disk Utility has an option to create an array, so I tried that. When I add two 250GB drives, the array size is 500GB. When I then add a 160GB drive, the array size drops to 480GB. Huh? If I keep adding disks (Regardless of order) the final array size comes out at 1.8 TB, as per the attached screenshot. Now with the following drives, I expected something more like:
160 + 250 + 250+ 750 + 250 +200 + 200 + 250 + 320 + 250 + 320 = 3.2TB
Am I missing something or making a false assumption somewhere?
View 4 Replies
View Related
